On average. Since the average person is basically illiterate.

How did logic ever hurt you that you hate it so?

Following “Christ” means doing the very very minimum of what “Christ” said to do. Anyone who believes otherwise is an illogical nihilistic moron.

This nihilistic attitude is exactly what people in power desperately want. The minimum requirement to any ostensible commitment to “Jesus” is abiding by “His” explicit commands.

That’s logically non-negotiable. Calling yourself Christian doesn’t make it so. And we are fools for failing to rub it in their anti-Christian faces.

anti-Christian right. There are no right-wing Christians. The whole concept is oxymoronic. It’s like meat-eating vegans or smart crypto bros.

In all seriousness, studies show that chess skill does not translate to other types of non-contextual intelligence (like memory and reasoning).

More to the point, what we need are people responsive to empirical and normative facts — rational people. Not logic zombies.

Technically, the idea that chess players are automatically smart outside of chess is worse than false. I’ve seen studies where smart kids were less likely to improve in chess because they are so curious about the real world (you know, philosophy, art, science).

deleted by creator

The justice system is an enormous compromise. For individuals to trust a (presumably) neutral third party to enact justice on their behalf is among the greatest achievements of human civilization. Damage to that institution doesn’t merely risk violence, it morally necessitates it.

deleted by creator

The World Cup is a disgrace. Fuck anyone who watches that shit.

deleted by creator

To be fair, any sapient creature would find it pretty upsetting to be among most humans.

Relevant, since Frank Herbert was a rabid conservative.

deleted by creator

Did you know the author of Dune is said to have read almost as many books as he has written?

Our whole civilization is a fundamentally asymptotic project. The same way that artists, scholars, and athletes are never satisfied. It’s the human condition.

That said, your claim that

morality has no place in a justice system

is such a basic misunderstanding of the entire point of human civilization, I’d be curious to hear what you think we’re doing when we debate and pass laws.

This is like saying you’re a picky eater who enjoys cat food.

Yes, it does mean there was an injustice. Any discrepancy between the moral outcome and the legal one is an injustice. Civilization is the struggle to reduce or reconcile that massive dichotomy.

The morally ideal outcome for rapists is instant death. That’s impractical (since it would endanger victims, for instance, and make people upset). So we have optimum alternatives.

A $26 fine ain’t it.

You’re misinterpreting my claim. The optimific outcome, the one that results in the most moral good, is the death of the rapist. Literally. If a law of the universe caused rapists to be instantly struck dead, this would be best.

The different normative question of what we should do (by definition, morally speaking) is also a practical one, exactly as you said.

The purpose of my original claim is to highlight the distance between the morally optimal outcome (simpliciter) and the justice system.