What is a Fact?

[Sculptor]

The English description "Philosophers are idiots" is a factual account of the idiocy of philosophers.

Any competent English communicator can see that, even if English speakers can't.

Lemme see if I've got this right Skepdick. An "English communicator" is someone who can't communicate redness without pointing at something red, a feat "English speakers" can achieve simply by using the word 'red'. Yours doesn't seem like a great innovation. Still, if you're in ever of need of an example of idiocy, at least you will always have yourself to point at.

He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm puzzled why he persists on this site.

[Sculptor]

There you go again! Confusing terms.

All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

Here's some simple basic Logic you might like to educate yourself with.
I know you have problems with this sort of stuff, so here's a vid with humour (you DO know what that is I hope?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ2FeXwMyFI

Idiot. Attempting to philosophise even when cornered.

If killing exists, is a world without killing better than a world with killing?

No, actually.
Killing has many and wide ranging uses.

[FlashDangerpants]

Imperfection of physical measurement of quantities and distances and so on is incredibly slight, sure the job is never complete with limitless precision, but that's just part of the game. Nonetheless, when I get out a ruler and measure my computer desk to be 14mm thick, you, at great distance, can measure your computer desk thickness and determine it to be 16mm thick, and then you can say with justification, that you have a thicker computer desk than I do.****

The same can never be said of a "moral truth". no matter which measurable analogue you insert in place of the moral truth you are pretending to measure, there is no tracking between them. We use volumetric sounding terms to describe our emotions and so on, but you have allowed that to mislead you into imagining actual quantities love and loathing and so on.

I am confident any normal average person will intuitively sense the great contrast between an evil act of murder and the evil act of a petty theft or petty violence.
If I rate the act of murder with a grade of 100 of evilness, the normal person, I am confident will accept petty violence as rated 5-10/100 evilness.

The average person will vary their rating according to mitigating and aggravating factors. And they will defintely also know that the 5-10 score for evilness is a rhteorical fiction not a measurement.

And that's before we mention that if you say "this desk is thinner than that one, but it's fatter too" about physical measurement, that is clearly understood as a direct contradiction. But if you say "I love it but I hate it", "it's nice but it's sort of nasty", "that dress is classy but only a prostitute would wear it", these obvious contradictions are permissable in normative language. Spititual woo-woo like Yin Yang has nothing to do with it, normative judgments are just not the sort of thing where we apply the same rules as we do to physical objects.

Your above is a strawman.
I did not argue with 'love it' or 'hate it', jealousy and the likes.

I am referring to moral standards re degree of evilness of evil acts.
The extremes of evil acts can be reasonably measured if say we fixed a base for one extreme, note the example I provided above.
The degree of evilness can also measured by the number of people killed or how serious is the injuries to people who are alive.

I didn't say yo argued with it, I am telling you you cannot account for it with your present theory and if you ever tried to do something very ildly difficult with your theiry, that is another place where you will fail.

I agree it is easier to measure physical objects while it is more difficult with abstract things.

It's not more difficult, it's strictly irrational. To measure a thing, the thing must be there to be measured. Abstract things are not there, therefore they are not there to be measured. If you can't grasp this simple a priori truth you are hopelessly delusional.

Nope, you are hopelessly ignorant.

While many abstract things cannot be measured as precise as physical things, they can still be measured relatively and the best justified estimates can be obtained for further actions of improvement to one's well being.
So much of such measurements is done in science, economics, psychometrics, psychiatry, psychology, etc. which had contributed much to the well being of individuals.
How can you be so ignorant of the above?

estimates are what you use when measurement is impossible
I am not ignorant of the above. None of the data provded from those sources confuses estimation with measurement, they are all keenly aware that they are working with estimated numbers. Also they are all keenly aware that they ar providing indexes that are only partially related to the object of their interest, whic is another thing you don't understand that I do.

But nevertheless, my point is everything is quantifiable and measurable as long as the Framework of Measurement is established rationally and steps are taken to ensure it is fool proof, and there is consensus.

You also have no hope of getting any consensus. Everyone except you and Prof understands that that things like Gross Domestic Happiness are very limited easily gamed fake indexes. But you two just insist that such things measure an immeasurable phenomenon and that's never going to work for you. The consensus will be that you are a pair of loons.

Gross Domestic Happiness is merely an extreme example which indicate possibility of even measure emotions. But in general I am not in favor of this at present.

What I am more interested in is moral facts and its valuations to be used as GUIDES only, and which will contribute to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Your moral facts are no better than GDH, arguably they are worse. The authors of that index know that they cannot actually measure happiness and they make no attempt to do so. You just don't get that this is the same sort of problem that you have.

It is a moral fact, no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.
Then from the Framework and System of Morality, the following moral fact is established, i.e,
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.

Euthenasia is mercy and mercy is a moral good. You can't apply your system, it's too easy to reject it as a premise and ignore its findings.

I'm saving you a lot of work here, you could devote a lifetime to trying to polish this turd like Prof has and just waste your life because you can't see the weakness of the foundations on which your edifice is constrcted but everyone else can.

Nope Euthanasia is morally wrong in the absolute sense, i.e. no exception.
But note this is merely a moral standard/policy, thus a guide only.

Given the present psychological and various states, euthanasia will be necessary, but why should we accept it forever. We should find solutions to reduce it.
It is only that we have a justified fixed moral standard and moral policy on euthanasia as a GUIDE that we can be triggered to preventive actions.

Thus instead of being hopelessly resigned to accept euthanasia, the fixed moral policy of ZERO euthanasia should drive humanity to find FOOLPROOF solutions to prevention euthanasia from need to be decided in the first place. This will force humanity to look into other fields of knowledge to ensure older people can die peacefully without terrible sufferings in the later stage of their life. There are so many avenues to prevent euthanasia.

There may be extreme cases where euthanasia has to be done despite all the preventive measures. At least, at this point, we can be happy we have done our bests.
Whereas, YOU as an ignoramus is merely hopelessly resigned to it and let the state of euthanasia get worse and worse instead of doing something about it.

But note, if you ever come to your senses to find solutions to deal with the problems of euthanasia you need to established grounds to justify whatever actions you take, thus you will have to establish moral facts as grounds to support whatever actions you take re dealing with euthanasia.

Oh my word you are so easy.
This is your big claimed moral fact: No human ought to kill another human. [period]
These are your own words denying that conclusion: There may be extreme cases where euthanasia has to be done despite all the preventive measures
You don't agree with your own argument.

Yours is a strawman.
I am not arguing about specific sentiments, e.g. fear, love, trust, confidence, etc.

Well that's worse. If you buy some pills from the drug store and the contents is listed as "100% assorted medicines" then the fact that the concents have been measured only to contain some medicine is not helpful with your heart condition. You want to know which medicine is there no?

But here you are happily claiming to measure an undifferentiated mass of "sentiment" without separating hate from trust from itchiness.

More strawman again.
You are so insistent, a fact cannot be mixed with values.

My point re the USD is 100% sentiment, is to prove you are wrong, i.e.
-the USD is a fact that is of high utility
-the USD as a fact is grounded on 100% sentiments.

But you do need to be able to measure specific sentiment, and just saying "strawman" at random does nothing to fix that. You want to derive information with your facts, so an uninformative fact such as "this pill bottle contains 100% medicine" is no good, the information needed is "ibuprofen" or whatever. I don't need to worry about your dollar argument, I can kill that easily, the point is to get at the thing you were defending with that shit dollar argument.

My point is, it is a fact, the US Dollar is totally [100%] based on sentiments, no gold equivalent like the past.
Thus my point, this fact of the USD is fact of value that is based on 100% sentiment.
Your point is, a "fact" cannot be a value nor be evaluative.
Can you dispute this?

Of course I can.
Currencies are priced by supply and demand same as any commodity.
The relevant sentiments drive demand.
The dollar is not a measure of sentiment, a rising dollar does not mean there is "more sentiment" and a falling dollar does not mean there is "less sentiment".
Strictly, it tracks behaviour, and sentiment informs that, but each participant in the bond market is working according to their own sentiment, which is basically fear when the dollar goes up, and optimism when it goes down.
Also greed, honor, pride and all the others, in a unique blend for each person.

Let be clear what we meant by 'sentiment':

Sentiment
Your opinion that most comedies are terrible and that you'd rather watch any other kind of movie could be described as your sentiment, or your attitude, about films.
Sentiment means a view or opinion, but it can also mean an emotion. Maybe you prefer tragic movies because you enjoy the sentiment of sadness.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sentiment

What I meant by 'sentiment' is not being sentimental, e.g. nostalgia, sadness,.

My meaning of 'sentiment' mean the person's feelings from a combination of the various primary and secondary emotions.

When you said,
The relevant sentiments drive demand.
It thus followed that the final price or value [intersection of supply and demand] is grounded on sentiments.
And don't be so ignorant, 'supply' is also effected by 'sentiments' of the supplier to hold back or flood the market based on his sentiments [as defined above].

And greed, honor, pride and all the others are reducible to the secondary and thence to the primary emotions, i.e. sentiments.

Nevertheless, it may not be practical to track every sentiment, but if say, Trump is assassinated and suddenly there is anarchy in the US, then next day the US Dollar dropped by 20% against all other currency. We can estimate the 20% drop is due mostly to the sentiment of fear.

Estimate. Estimate what? 20% more fear than yesterday? 20% less enthusiasm for TBills? 20% more desire for the Euro? 20% more

Yes, net* 20% more fear than yesterday.
* the currency market is played by millions or even billion of people, what is a value of the USD at any time is the net resultant.

Your intellect is to low to apprehend the complexity of the above.

Once the principles of the role of sentiments contribute to the final price, then one can manipulate the market price by changing the levels of these sentiments.
Are you that ignorant of how big market players has manipulate the market with fake news or real news to amplify the fear factor to trigger a fall in Share Price, then they went in to buy the lower price shares and then when the truth is revealed, the share price will rise and then they will sell, that is how they make their quick bucks.

There are various strategies market manipulators used sentiments [emotions] to manipulate the market to make quick bucks.
How come you are so ignorant of this whilst you are claiming yourself as an expert in economics?

I don't claim to be an expert in economics, I am just an interested observer. You are just clearly very shit at it. But that's not really the point here, because the question is whether you are any good at philosophy and the answer isn't looking good because you just shat the bed again...

What you have conceded with that long stream of nonsense is that you are unable to link the measurement to the actual thing being measured, and that you aren't even trying to do so. I can just let you have your claim that the price of the dollar is a fact based on 100% sentiment if I like, because is it still a fact of behaviour, not of the sentiment itself - which is a problem I told you about in the thing you quoted up there. But the terrible thing is that you are not measuring any specific sentiment, so the only quantity you have available is "100% assorted stuff". None of your other data points will have any different outcome, they will all actually measure behaviour and make assumptions about underlying sentiment - which I told you about with my fun story about Geoff's couch.

You have got nowhere with this effort because you are no good at this stuff.

Dude, I am not even the only one. Loads of people have shown you that YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS

Which premise of mine is false?

what the fuck is wrong with you? Don't you understand what it means to say that premises aren't supporting a conclusion?

I admit due to time constraints some of my premise were hastily syllogized but they can be easily rearranged.

That's another problem you have. You don't understand that the logic in your arguments is always what I target, not the phrasing of the premises. No matter how many times you write the same argument in new words, it will still be a shit argument if......
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS

Btw, I am giving up discussing with you since your approach is too rude for me and it is not worth the time I have to sacrifice.
This post itself took me two hours and I have to reread and edit every now and then.

So what? You are just going to write the same argument out again, you never learn from a mistake.

In any case, I have to be the one who has to provide knowledge which you are ignorant of and as the discussion goes deeper I have to provide more of it.

Note the case of Yin-Yang and its fundamental which Bohr had borrowed for his Quantum Theories which is of significant utility to humanity at present. That is not religious - it is philosophy, yet you are so ignorant and insist it is woo woo.

Spiritualist bullshit.

[Skepdick]

No, actually.
Killing has many and wide ranging uses.

Yes actually.

If killing is useful for a particular outcome, a world where that outcome is achievable without killing is better than a world where that outcome is achievable with killing.

Equifinality

[Skepdick]

That's another problem you have. You don't understand that the logic in your arguments is always what I target, not the phrasing of the premises. No matter how many times you write the same argument in new words, it will still be a shit argument if......
YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
BLAH BLAH BLAH

That's a general problem with foundationalism. Not a particular problem with VA's arguments.

[Skepdick]

Lemme see if I've got this right Skepdick. An "English communicator" is someone who can't communicate redness without pointing at something red, a feat "English speakers" can achieve simply by using the word 'red'. Yours doesn't seem like a great innovation.

Innovation what?

I just asked you a fucking question.

IS THIS RED
or
IS THIS RED

If the idea of answering a simple question is "novel" to you, I can't imagine how you got a Masters degree.

Still, if you're in ever of need of an example of idiocy, at least you will always have yourself to point at.

Indeed! Ax example of an idiot is readily available to me at all times. But for a paragon case for idiocy I always point at Philosophers.

[Sculptor]

No, actually.
Killing has many and wide ranging uses.

Yes actually.

If killing is useful for a particular outcome, a world where that outcome is achievable without killing is better than a world where that outcome is achievable with killing.

No. I said no and I mean it.

[Atla]

Note the case of Yin-Yang and its fundamental which Bohr had borrowed for his Quantum Theories which is of significant utility to humanity at present.

[uwot]

! Ax example of an idiot is readily available to me at all times. But for a paragon case for idiocy I always point at Philosophers.

Well here's the thing Skepdick: you need someone else to point at red before you recognise it, but somehow you know exactly what a philosopher looks like. If that provokes no introspection, here's what ya do: Get 3ft of two by four (1m x 47mm x 100mm is just dandy). Write IRONY on it. Hit yourself in the face with it. If you are still stupid, give up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The following is impossible

FALSE.
You are simply WRONG.
There are numerous examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film) , is based on numberless accounts of people wanted assisted death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film)
Fought legal battles for the right to have someone assist her death.

https://exitinternational.net/about-exit/history/
A movement devoted to do what you claim is "100%" not the case.

You are too hasty.

Note I qualified 'normal' before 'human being'.

Rendering everything you day subject to anyone's definition of what you might want to call "normal" today.
Therefore you have no right to press for conclusions in which you insist on universal, absolute, or wide-ranging moral laws. And your excessive use of "100%" Is rendered laughable.

You don't get the point.
All normal human beings are born with two arms and two legs which is aligned with the generic human nature.
But in reality there are people who are born without two arms and two legs [with one or all limbs missing], they are regarded as not the typical NORMAL human being.
It is easy to understand this principle of human nature with physical features of the human body, but it is same with the generic mental disposition of the normal human being.

I am arguing there are inherent generic moral disposition within all normal human beings as I had justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
When I can justified such generic moral features and disposition, it is not wrong to state 100% of all normal human beings has such features, just like all normal humans has two arms and two legs.

It is just that you are ignorant and do not have the propensity to reflect deeper philosophical to understand there is inherent potential moral faculty within all normal human beings.

If a person has suicide tendencies, that is a psychiatric issue {DSM-V}, thus not normal.

It's not for you to judge another person. A person facing a terminal illness with a painful short future - it is PERFECTLY normal to want to die, and have another assist in that. It is perfectly normal to want to help another achieve this.

In other cases, those who seek death are not 'normal' e.g. in case of terminal illness, and for various reasons which has a psychological or theistic basis.

Normal??
You don't have any grounds at all for what you claimed is 'normal'.

THINK DEEPLY! How many out of the 7+ billion at present will volunteer to be killed if they have terminal illness.
Note the majority of the 7+ billion, i.e. 80% who are theistic, thus are not likely to rely on themselves to decide or human help to die but rather they rely on their God.
How come you are so ignorant of this glaring fact, i.e. 80% of the 7+ billion are theists?

But a "normal" person who do not have any specific abnormal condition will not want to die.
Just ask yourself [assuming you are normal] and your normal spouse, kins, relatives, friends, etc.

It is also perfectly normal to kill human beings in warfare.
It is also perfectly normal to want to abort a foetus

Yes, it is a duty [within his contract] for one soldier to kill enemies when war is officially declared between countries. But this is within the Political Framework and System.
However within the Moral Framework and System, as justified
'no human ought to kill another human.
The Moral Framework and System will trigger actions to prevent wars so that no human will have a political duty [contract] to kill enemies in wars, thus meeting the moral objectives progressively and optimally.

It is "normal" within some bastardized thinking to abort a fetus for practical and selfish reasons.
However as I had explained, it is morally wrong to abort a fetus. The solution humanity should strive for is to prevent abortion at source [roots] as much as possible, except for situations that are beyond normal human controls.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can't derive an ought from a normal, moron

You are very ignorant.
I am about to raise an OP on:

"Ought[ing] from IS" is a fact and the process generate facts, which are evidently a state-of-affairs in reality independent of individual's opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580

Fascists, and tyrants are commonly in the practice of rendering ought from is.

Any one [good, bad, ugly, evil] can render ought from is anytime and anywhere.
However, you forgot the the moral-fact element.
What is rendered as 'ought' from 'is' must be justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning to be Justified True Moral Beliefs, i.e. objective moral facts.

Again your thinking is too shallow, narrow and hasty.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Gross Domestic Happiness is merely an extreme example which indicate possibility of even measure emotions. But in general I am not in favor of this at present.

What I am more interested in is moral facts and its valuations to be used as GUIDES only, and which will contribute to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Nope Euthanasia is morally wrong in the absolute sense, i.e. no exception.
But note this is merely a moral standard/policy, thus a guide only.

Given the present psychological and various states, euthanasia will be necessary, but why should we accept it forever. We should find solutions to reduce it.
It is only that we have a justified fixed moral standard and moral policy on euthanasia as a GUIDE that we can be triggered to preventive actions.

Thus instead of being hopelessly resigned to accept euthanasia, the fixed moral policy of ZERO euthanasia should drive humanity to find FOOLPROOF solutions to prevention euthanasia from need to be decided in the first place. This will force humanity to look into other fields of knowledge to ensure older people can die peacefully without terrible sufferings in the later stage of their life. There are so many avenues to prevent euthanasia.

There may be extreme cases where euthanasia has to be done despite all the preventive measures. At least, at this point, we can be happy we have done our bests.
Whereas, YOU as an ignoramus is merely hopelessly resigned to it and let the state of euthanasia get worse and worse instead of doing something about it.

But note, if you ever come to your senses to find solutions to deal with the problems of euthanasia you need to established grounds to justify whatever actions you take, thus you will have to establish moral facts as grounds to support whatever actions you take re dealing with euthanasia.

Oh my word you are so easy.

This is your big claimed moral fact:
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
These are your own words denying that conclusion:

There may be extreme cases where euthanasia has to be done despite all the preventive measures

You don't agree with your own argument.

You did not read my point thoroughly and
you have a lapse in understanding English?

Note, in my post above, I stated the following;

What I am more interested in is moral facts and its valuations to be used as GUIDES only, and which will contribute to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Note the parallel in actual practice, i.e. the ZERO DEFECT Objective set by efficient Management as a GUIDING objective to improve productivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Defects
Surely, because humans are fallible, a constant 'zero defect' objective cannot sustain in practice, thus there will be defects. But the above ZERO DEFECT strategy provide an efficient motivation for continuous improvements towards the ideal goal.

The above is what I have applied to the Framework and System of Morality.
I know the ignoramus will miss my point, thus I must have emphasized 'a thousand times' "moral facts [100%] are to be used as GUIDES only and never to be enforced" as a constant reminder. This is like a policy, a standard which is a guide only.

I have also stated, humans - being human and fallible will commit all sorts of deviations from the ideal standard, thus generating moral variances.

This is where the APPLIED [Morality = PURE] takes over to close the moral variances with continuous improvements.

But being human, the ideal standards [justified moral facts] is not likely to be achieved at 100, thus euthanasia [is very likely] has to be done despite all the preventive measures.
However, moral beings will strive to achieve to as close as possible to the necessary ideal moral standard. Perhaps a 100% result could be achieved, who knows.
If there is no justified ideal moral standard to act as a guide [a fixed goal] what is attempted to be morality will be filled with people who are like "chicken running around without heads" or people attempting to steer rudderless boats amidst rocky shores.

I am not going to waste time on your other useless ignorant points.

[FlashDangerpants]

Gross Domestic Happiness is merely an extreme example which indicate possibility of even measure emotions. But in general I am not in favor of this at present.

What I am more interested in is moral facts and its valuations to be used as GUIDES only, and which will contribute to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Nope Euthanasia is morally wrong in the absolute sense, i.e. no exception.
But note this is merely a moral standard/policy, thus a guide only.

Given the present psychological and various states, euthanasia will be necessary, but why should we accept it forever. We should find solutions to reduce it.
It is only that we have a justified fixed moral standard and moral policy on euthanasia as a GUIDE that we can be triggered to preventive actions.

Thus instead of being hopelessly resigned to accept euthanasia, the fixed moral policy of ZERO euthanasia should drive humanity to find FOOLPROOF solutions to prevention euthanasia from need to be decided in the first place. This will force humanity to look into other fields of knowledge to ensure older people can die peacefully without terrible sufferings in the later stage of their life. There are so many avenues to prevent euthanasia.

There may be extreme cases where euthanasia has to be done despite all the preventive measures. At least, at this point, we can be happy we have done our bests.
Whereas, YOU as an ignoramus is merely hopelessly resigned to it and let the state of euthanasia get worse and worse instead of doing something about it.

But note, if you ever come to your senses to find solutions to deal with the problems of euthanasia you need to established grounds to justify whatever actions you take, thus you will have to establish moral facts as grounds to support whatever actions you take re dealing with euthanasia.

Oh my word you are so easy.

This is your big claimed moral fact:
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
These are your own words denying that conclusion:

There may be extreme cases where euthanasia has to be done despite all the preventive measures

You don't agree with your own argument.

You did not read my point thoroughly and
you have a lapse in understanding English?

Note, in my post above, I stated the following;

What I am more interested in is moral facts and its valuations to be used as GUIDES only, and which will contribute to the well being of individuals and humanity.

That makes zero difference. Your "GUIDE ONLY" still says No human ought to kill another human. [period].
And your own words also say that there can be cases a human ought to kill another human.
Saying "well it's only a guide" means nothing.
Your guide is faulty for saying "no humans ought..." without sufficient justification.
And need I remind you that you are sup[posed to be dealing in moral fact here. So if you say No human ought to kill another human. [period]. ... but you know, this isn't a fact, it's really just a principle for some guidance, it's at your discression really then this was all a total waste of your time.

Note the parallel in actual practice, i.e. the ZERO DEFECT Objective set by efficient Management as a GUIDING objective to improve productivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Defects
Surely, because humans are fallible, a constant 'zero defect' objective cannot sustain in practice, thus there will be defects. But the above ZERO DEFECT strategy provide an efficient motivation for continuous improvements towards the ideal goal.

The above is what I have applied to the Framework and System of Morality.
I know the ignoramus will miss my point, thus I must have emphasized 'a thousand times' "moral facts [100%] are to be used as GUIDES only and never to be enforced" as a constant reminder. This is like a policy, a standard which is a guide only.

I think we are a long way past pretending any of this shit you are doing meets any plausible standard for the use of words like fact.

[Skepdick]

No, actually.
Killing has many and wide ranging uses.

Yes actually.

If killing is useful for a particular outcome, a world where that outcome is achievable without killing is better than a world where that outcome is achievable with killing.

No. I said no and I mean it.

So you don't care about the end-goal (purpose?) of killing. You think killing for killing's sake is useful.

When you kill yourself for utility's sake then I'll believe you.

[Sculptor]

You are too hasty.

Note I qualified 'normal' before 'human being'.

Rendering everything you day subject to anyone's definition of what you might want to call "normal" today.
Therefore you have no right to press for conclusions in which you insist on universal, absolute, or wide-ranging moral laws. And your excessive use of "100%" Is rendered laughable.

You don't get the point.

Yes, I do get the point.
You want to impose your idiosyncratic moral code upon everyone on the grounds that you are "normal" and everyone else "ought" to comply with your wishes.
You are 100% laughable.