Is Veeky Forums smart enough to solve this problem?

Now youre thinking like a true philosophical patrician.

>t. Religious sheep
EVERYTHING SHOULD BE REDUCED TO PURE RATIONALITY REEEEEEEEE

go visit a doctor, you don't seem alright

>you are alive just in time to witness the suicide of the author

>By picking A its the equivalent of cutting off 10000 peoples fingers to prevent 1 person from dying.
Yeah, giving away neutral toys is equal to cutting of people's fingers

Thanks for the insight /pol/

0, why would the principal need to buy toys for his students?

It shows that many minor inconveniences can be worse than a singular tragedy.

Is this true? How do you know?

>40% of trannies kill themselves
it's a safe bet

Utilitarianism is self-defeating; trying to get people to follow a utilitarian-based ethics/legal system in and of itself makes people in general unhappy.

>you're either religious or utilitarian
no

>40%
>safe bet

Its not equivalence, it's analogy. I'm a tranny and I agree with it. Stop calling everything you disagree with pol

>Not understanding philosophy

saying go back to /pol/ barely has any power anymore, is a meme at this point

>not being a chad utility monster

>being a virgin philosophical zombie

the only moral thing to do is to give everything you own to me

>99% of people are normal
>Be the cuck principal
>I bought fucking balls to everyone so no one gets disrespected
>The children all play a little, then toss the shit aside and continue doing shit
>did not offended anyone but no one really liked
>It costed 500$ to buy 44 balls
>No one gave a fuck
>Meanwhile the Chad professor gave the students fucking nothing
>The fucker even jokes and makes fun of the gifts
>Everyone laughts
>Whynoonelikesme.jpg

are you drunk

I just solved the problem faggot

This lol

>what are escalating odds

20 boys toys. Wasnt that hard.

>why is that woman dressed

fixed

>implying there are no diminishing returns

ummmm.... EX-FUCKING-SCUSE ME??????????????????

these comics unnerve the shit out of me.

>Its not equivalence
>its the equivalent
:thinking:

The answer is 20.

hey, you know how analogies work? they re-contextualize ONE similarity, the similarity being sacrificing the needs of the many for the few. Toys also aren't fingers, but the analogy still works, you retard

>implying happiness increases linearly with number of toys given
what you need to do is determine the happiness vs # of toys function for each child then run some analysis

Just give legos to everyone of them.
Everyone love legos.

You sillies have forgotten Mr. Sean, and the principal if they’re a boy. So 21 or 22.

44
But boy toys for each kid. Girl toys are lame.

>Give a toy that is related to their biological sex (Cars and action figures for boys, dolls and house stuff for girls)
Except there are no 'toys related to their biological sex', boys are given cars and action figures to play with because of cultural assumptions about what boys should enjoy playing with and thus they learn to enjoy playing with cars and action figures, and likewise for girls. Anyone that's had kids knows that young children will play with whatever you put in front of them with wild abandon, completely unaware of whether they 'should' or 'shouldn't' enjoy doing so.

No need to buy any boy toys. Ms Lucy and Ms Cheryl already have their boy toys i.e. the boys they fuck in their class. The principal is probably getting in on that too because principals all seen to be women now.

>implying toys inherently relate to someones biological sex
>implying people aren't socialized to find certain toys masculine or feminine
I don't see the problem with giving gender neutral toys.

They actually tried this. Turns out, gender neutral "raising" didn't "fix" anything. Girls still wanted to be hairdressers and boys wanted to be engineers...

>implying either of those things are false
you're looking at societal and historical trends and coming to the conclusion that those trends were arrived at through top-down conditioning and coercion, when in reality those trends came about BECAUSE there are innate predispositions to certain preferences and behaviours found in boys and girls caused directly by their sex

the behaviour, psychology, and physiology of males and females are different, and there is nothing any sociology or X-studies class you take in college can do to change that fact

>muh utilitarianism
This shit was literally SHAT on in the last century, why do you people spout this meme shit

just buy the boy/girl toys that are fun for either:
>cool cars with some pink cars too
>EZ bake oven and cabbage patch kids
>hungry hungry hippos

its not hard to buy toys which are fun for both sexes. femenists need to gtfo the classroom or im going to homeschool my kid.

>he doesn't play XCOM

Try rule based utilitarianism.
It accept that humans are retarded and you can't explain why every action is either good or bad or get into the nuances every time, so you have to make general rules to have shit function.
Or get past babbys first utilitarianism that says "hurr durr all trolley problems are the same" and accept that societal implications are a harm to be considered outside of just the harms of the event.

The problem with utilitarianism is trying to arbitrarily quantify the effects of events based on flawed assumptions.

slinkies for everyone

you forgot about the rule of diminishing returns. There is an optimal distribution somewhere.

you are all brainlets. is pareto optimal.

Why would you complain about that

This can be made into a math problem.

H(n) = the happiness of kid n
E(n) = the raw enjoyment factor for a single unit of toy per kid
T(n) = the number of toys given to kid n

H(n) = E(n)*log( T(n)+1 ) + E(n)

toys diminish in returns according to log(number of toys + 1) + 1. this is because getting one more toy when you only had one is a big deal, while getting one more when you already had 100 isn't. the additional happiness gained by one more toy is equal to the enjoyment gained by one toy divided by the total amount of toys, times the raw happiness gained by one toy on it's own. with some mental speeding ahead we get the formula happiness = E log(T+1)+ E, where E is the enjoyment gained by one toy on it's own and T is the number of toys.

The goal is to maximize the integral from zero to kid n of H(n), by altering T(n)

You cannot properly play a marriage if you do not have girl's toys. Well, you can, but you'll be missing out the most common type of marriage, and then some.

Realy, even when I was a child it always bothered me that male toys didn't include things like house appliances, woman, and more clothes variety. Action figures have a life too!

>user posts some shitty text version of the trolley problem instead of the memetastic one

>they tried this
then show me you brainlet, why should I take your word for it, post the study

Dildos for everyone. Show them the wonders of being a woman

I forgot the name of the study, but you can search for it and I know it even has a wiki page. Basically, a vilalge in Israel decided to do that so they had a bunch of folks raise they children neutral. After these children found jobs they conformed more than average, boys were engineers and girls were just girls.

Still though, if you re offended by this for being a mentally disabled woman or something, then I suggest that you realize that you can still be a woman and an engineer.

Why are these people so mentally ill?
Why are people encouraging them?

you tell me, you replied to this thread drumpfkin

See pic related
>logic and reason here to stay
Also see pic related

I hear something like 40-50% of these basket cases off themselves. It's almost as if they're mentally ill or something.

thanks
was making a joke about the fact that the color of her skin makes it look like she's dresses in spandex from head to toe

but now I am afraid not many got the joke

>I hear something like 40-50% of these basket cases off themselves
That's because of bigots like you.

The answer is 44 boys' toys and 44 girls' toys, and let each child choose. It doubles your expenses, but you won't get sued, so it's better in the long run.

Underrated desu

It's sad when the Jews disproved modern SJWs decades ago

i want to [math]cum[/math] inside this nigress

>By picking A its the equivalent of cutting off 10000 peoples fingers to prevent 1 person from dying.
Which is perfectly reasonable for a utilitarian position. Utilitarianism is calculating the average happiness. Depending on how you calculate it then it can be reasonable. The happiness I experience for living is worth a million fingers so just cut them off.

If you're going to include teachers, you'd need to include all male teachers. You don't include teachers.

>It's almost as if they're mentally ill or something.
Trannies don't disagree that they're mentally ill, nor do most psychologists. The mental illness is called "gender dysphoria" and the treatment is HRT and SRS.