Hold on

(note: I'm a mech engineer)

Edited

To quote a philosophy major from my school

“You can’t prove that he even exists”

So how are you supposed to prove the lever is exerting x amount of force

That statement is wholly irrational.

If you can’t even prove the lever exists

You can argue you perceive the lever

But that doesn’t necessarily mean it exists

When someone introduces a statement like that, the value of the conversation is as useful as trying to teach calculus to a brick wall.

NOTE: I will not attempt to teach a brick wall calculus.

What I’m saying is

I know what you are saying.

Alright

It's a poor line of reasoning.

Also congrats on the rank up

From a “proving” standpoint though, it’s a perfectly solid line of reasoning

If that is your stance, I'm going to discontinue the interaction.

```NOTE: I will not attempt to teach a brick wall calculus.```

alright, that's your choice

like @Cirno said, "philosophy is not something that can be proven through something scientific"

I was not attempting to prove philsophy through science. That should have been obvious by the statements I made.

I know

I'm agreeing

dont need murder to be proven immoral. it's unethical.

Shifting the word from moral to ethical does nothing but change the letters to the same concept.

im not concerned with morals because theyre subjective

Then murder is acceptable.

can you "prove" anything is immoral?

Yes.

The question is, can you.

no, it's unethical which makes it unacceptable. objectively it causes harm to others

That is the purpose of the conversation from the start.

You may want to review the definition of ethical vs definition of moral.

its a dumb question, im not here to humor you

I'm not here to agree with you or humor you.

I find your replies to be dumb.

So now we are feeling the same.

How about that.

It's of no logical utility however to state those things unless you believe it will make me feel bad or humbled or makes you feel good or some other ridiculous feeling based utility.